The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is proposing to require that electronic on board recorders (EOBRs) be used instead of paper logs for recording commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers’ hours of service (HOS). All long haul operations and some short haul operations would be affected. Carriers would have 3 years to comply. Also, proposed new standards would make clearer what supporting documents carriers must keep to back up drivers’ logs. EOBR-users would get a break on supporting documents.

I understand that DOT isn’t going to require the EOBRs to record certain detailed information, such as vehicle speed and the vehicle’s exact location. But don’t many of the fleet management systems motor carriers currently use record this information? If a company chooses to use its current system as an EOBR, will an agency investigator have access to this more detailed information even though this isn’t the information he’s supposed to be after?

Under this proposed rule, FMCSA says that their investigators will only be able to use the electronic data to make sure drivers are following the hours of service rules. Does this reassure you and other drivers that the investigators won’t actually get a lot more information? Why or why not?

why are some of these things being recorded such as steering function, vehicle speed, and location? i thought the whole point of this EOBR thing is to accurately record hours? things like vehicle speed–arent they best left to the police instead of EOBRs? so, if i *happen* to drive above the speed limit, would the EOBR police come after me? why can’t the EOBRs just stick to more limited functions??

Hi Merc. Actually, the FMCSA is deliberately not requiring EOBRs to record things like vehicle speed. FMCSA is requiring location to be recorded, along with information like duty status and the distance traveled, but FMCSA is making efforts to make sure the data is protected and only accessible to certain authorized officials.
Do you think even the information the EOBRs are required to collect is unnecessary or excessive?

“Actually, the FMCSA is deliberately not requiring EOBRs to record things like vehicle speed.”

Mr. Moderator this statement is factually incorrect. If the EOBR records location “City, State” it only requires a little math to figure out how fast the vehicle was traveling between two points. To flesh this out, if the EOBR records the vehicle moving from point A and records a time then records point B when the vehicle stops and records a time then the average speed of the vehicle can be determined. DOT inspectors use this formula to determine if your average speed goes over the speed limit by utilizing the entries recorded in the log books.

You might want to check out What will this cost? , because the driver fatigue problem is mentioned there. Leave a comment on that post letting us know how you think FMCSA did in dealing with that problem.

It sounds like you might have something to say about a different proposed rule on HOS changes. You can comment on that proposed rule here.

Why cant I just write it down on my paper logs as we have been doing for years? an eobr will cause truckers to shut down in the middle of no where.. the HOS are enough do not add an EOBR to the mix.. as an owner operator who would get my EOBR data? my wife at home?

FMCSA, DOT, NHTSA, NTSB, have all made claims that EOBR’s will make the highways safer… I ask again how?

Just by adding the mechanical device, even though the driver still has to manually add any change of duty status?

This EOBR just sounds like an overly expensive record keeper – like a paper log is.

What about this information? ATA announced that in an effort to rationalize a change in federal Hours of Service (HOS) requirements for professional truck drivers, the U.S. DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) misapplied its own crash numbers so as to elevate driver fatigue as a cause of truck crashes.

Adding an EOBR will do nothing but add yet another cost to the trucker or trucking company..

Hi truckdriversnews. Thanks for your comment.
FMCSA believes that the EOBR’s will help reduce HOS violations and in doing so, lead to fewer accidents caused by driver fatigue. Do you not believe the EOBR’s will be effective at reducing HOS violations? And if so, why is this? Or is your primary concern the additional cost the EOBR’s will impose?

Driver fatigue is not a real problem according to an FMCSA webinar, that was publicly was communicated on September 30, 2010, hosted by the FMCSA titled: 2009 – Historic Truck Crash Declines. The number is 1.4% fatigue related accidents in trucking.

No, I do not believe the EOBR will be effective of reducing truck crashes – mainly because it will be on the wrong vehicles.

My primary concern is FMCSA falsifying its own information to make it seem that new regulations and such are needed. Plus, adding yet another COST to the trucking company or owner operator – without a firm reasoning.

It is well known that truck crashes are the lowest now then they ever have been since record keeping began “WITHOUT” the use of EOBR’s. It is also well known that about 70% of truck crashes were caused by a 4 wheeler. It is also well known that the data regarding “fatigue” as a cause of truck crashes was and still is being manipulated to justify more regulations and EOBR’s. Seems to me instead of burdening the trucker with more cost and regulations you should be utilizing my tax dollars to educate the public how to drive around us. Fatigue as a justification, this is ludicrous!!! I think alot of truckers will agree the EOBR’s are nothing more then a truckers “Ankle Bracelet” we will be forced to pay for.

Just as George Orwell’s book revealed the possibilities of many things that have become a reality during our lifetime, our thought to be friend of the people: Our “Sovereign Government” could become the same as the subject of the book written by Attorney Gerry Spence.

Atty Gerry Spence wrote a book by the name of: From Freedom to Slavery, which spoke this following statement:

“But over the years, as a criminal defense attorney, my in-court experiences with the police forced me to the realization that police, like the rest of use, want to win. we are a competitive people who, from the earliest times, have donned a jersey of one color or another, and we have been taught that we should fight for that color jersey, and win. Many police, perhaps most, struggle under the misguided belief that when the accused is guilty it becomes the duty of the police to see that the accused is convicted and punished. Many police seem to weigh one wrong against the other — their own wrong of fiddling with the evidence, of intentionally omitting exculpatory facts, even the criminal wrong of planting or manufacturing evidence or, equally reprehensible, lying under oath, against what many police see as the greater wrong of permitting the guilty to escape his just dues. Indeed, the argument that it is all right for the police to cheat if, in the process, they catch the criminal, is commonly dramatized in the movies and on the television screen.; This idea, in fact, is applauded by many a citizen as justice in the raw without all the bothersome loopholes that permit the guilty to escape. On the screen we often witness the cop blithely picking the lock of a suspect’s home and illegally entering and searching his room. We watch the illegal phone tap being made or the cop, the hero, smashing a witness up against the wall and brutally pounding information out of the hapless creature, and we cheer him on.”

Will law enforcement have the right to look at the eobr ? What kind of a question is that ? Except now you will have to let them in your truck so they can do that MN. style profiling when they see your home furnishings. I know that DOT law enforcement does not get enough sleep at home ether T.V’s in their bedrooms and laptops and a partner to keep them a wake doing grown up things. The EOBR’S are nothing more then a tool for law enforcement to use to come into my home away from home.

I do have another question though regarding permanent copies of logs for the driver.
In Canada we get to claim a per diem of $54.00 for every 24 hours we are away from home and claim that amount against our total income at the end of the year. I currently draw this information from my paper logs.
Will employers be required to give us an electronic copy or paper copy of log sheets monthly or at the minimum yearly?

Hi trucking. The DOT does not have the authority to look inside of anyone’s truck. As for law enforcement officials, they must still follow regular legal procedures before looking inside of a truck. Using an EOBR would not void any of those procedures. The EOBRs do not provide personally identifiable information that could lead to profiling. Please see this section Information Collected regarding the information that the EOBRs do collect.

I understand MODERATOR however you are thinking that the dot police are angles, you moderator I do not believe you have been in a truck and dealt with them. Yes I understand that DOT cops are not suppose to brake the law in order to enforce the law. When is the last time you seen a dot cop parked on an over pass using lazier to catch speeders. Over passes have a no parking zone, so tell me they are not breaking the law to catch speeders. Or parking on the shoulder of the road in which is emergency parking only to catch speeders. They also have a way of stretching their heads in your window to take a look around your truck. Yes the EBOR to some is just away to enforce the HOS laws. It is the FMCSA distrust of drivers, and have totally lost the trust of owner operators and the little guy. So you see moderator you see law enforcement as angles, I see them as a tax collecting arm of the government. And no I am not radical I have seen some real sad tickets to me and others, and the sad thing is they know that is easier and cheaper to just go ahead and pay the fines. I do appreciate your response however, thank you.

Thank you for your response, trucking. The moderators of the Regulation Room don’t take a position on the rule or the police, and our job is to be neutral. It sounds like you have had some experiences where you thought your privacy was violated. Could you tell us a bit more about these experiences and how you think they might be worse with an EOBR? You might also be interested in commenting on our enforcement post here .

i believe eobr’s would be a disaster for the small business trucker.case in point,i had an 18:00 appt., my 14 hrs were up at 21:30,i thought that would be plenty of time to unload,at 01:30 they were done and told me i could not stay on the property,the nearest safe haven was 1hr. away. i would like to know how i would put that into an eobr?
thank you for listening,alcanman

Since the EOBR regulation is being introduced as a safety initiative, it is appropriate to also consider driver safety. A wireless device that transmits driver stops is a truck hijackers dream come true. Even though the proposed EOBR does no record stops down to the GPS grid coordinate level, all a thief or theft ring needs to know is the city the truck stopped to have a good idea of what their cargo is. Shipping locations are well known within the trucking community. For example if a truck stops for more than a 1/2 hour and less than 10 hours in my home town there is a very high probability the truck is carrying bagged soil or bricks. The thieves know what towns the pharmaceuticals, electronics, precious metals (like copper, aluminum) and other high value loads are being shipped from. Several recommendations:
A. DOT conduct a study to confirm the security of the information from unauthorized users. If a law enforcement officer can read it via wireless or plug-in information – it is not secure. If wireless networks were secure the DOD would not prohibit their use for sensitive communications.
B. DOT conduct a study to determine the number of truck drivers who will be killed or injured due to criminal exploitation of the security vulnerabilities of the proposed EOBR system.
C. If an upgrade in the systems is require to make them more secure, those costs need to be included in the cost of the proposal.

Thank you for bringing up an important safety and security issue, rdb. Do you think having a wired EOBR during data transmission would lessen some of these issues? What are some ways that you think might help increase the security of EOBR data?

The Congress passed and the President signed the FISMA Act of 2002 to require Federal Agencies to complete the required Information Assurance certifications prior to implementing an electronic information gathering system. If DOT would complete the required Information Security Assurance certifications required by law, the answer would be found during the certification process.

According to the purpose of the proposed EOBR regulation is to ensure Hours of Service (HOS) compliance. If I get in my truck and drive in a parking lot in a circle for 11 hours, at 11 hours and 1 minute, I will be over my hours of service (or whatever the DOT HOS regulation of the day is). If the DOT regulation is about Hours of Service all they need to know is how long I have been driving/working. Recommendation – A. DOT delete all the other requirements for EOBR recording of information that is not directly related to HOS.
B. DOT rewite the cost estimates based on the reduced costs to small business from not having to record information that is not required to track hours of service. Why should I have to pay for the collection and storage of information that is not required to track HOS compliance?

Location is not required, unless you of course you wanted to start a Vehicle Miles TAX using trucks as a guinea pig. If so, recommend going to congress as the constitution requires all bills requiring taxation to originate there.

The electronic systems in modern trucks are delicate and expensive. The DOT regulation does not specify who is liable to damages to a trucks electronic system if a law enforcement officer causes damages to a system by not properly grounding or improperly accessing the data. This not with NAFTA precedent. A truck driver in Canada asked a law enforcement officer to sign a letter assuming damage liability prior to accessing his his limiter. The law enforcement officer refused and issued the truck driver a citation for non compliance. In court, the judge found the driver not guilty. Recommendation: Liability for damage by by law enforce needs to be clearly stated by DOT.

Do you know any more details about this Canadian case, or more situations where there have been problems with law enforcement officers damaging EOBRs or other devices? This kind of information could be really useful for DOT to know about, if we can get some more specifics.

Persistence and creativity have paid off so far for trucker Lee Ingratta.

The one-truck owner-operator from Gravenhurst, Ontario, has captured the attention of the trucking community for the method he used to beat a ticket for an alleged violation of the provincial law that requires trucks to be equipped with speed-limiting devices.

A judge tossed Ingratta’s case out of court on June 4. Not surprisingly, provincial enforcement officials have filed an appeal.

During a stop at a scale house in July 2009, an inspector with the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario asked Ingratta for permission to connect an external device to a port on Ingratta’s Peterbilt to check for compliance with the speed-limiter law. Under the law, computerized settings must not allow a truck to exceed 105 km/h, or 65 mph.

Things got interesting from there.

“He came over with this little gizmo and wanted to plug it in to the computer,” said Ingratta, a self-proclaimed “computer guy” who even owned his own computer shop for 25 years before returning to trucking in 2004.

“I’m thinking to myself, if he plugs this in to one guy’s truck, and then he takes it out and tries to plug it in to my truck, what happens if there’s a little charge of static electricity in this thing? Is he grounding the thing out? Is he going to zap my computer? No, he’s not plugging it in until he signs this waiver.”

The “just in case” waiver Ingratta drafted and carried with him says that he will consent to a speed-limiter inspection only if the officer or agency takes full responsibility for any damage that may occur as a result. The officer disregarded the waiver and cited Ingratta for “refusal” to allow entry to the computer port.

The judge, however, said Ingratta did not refuse and tossed the case. It’s not over yet, however, as the province isn’t going down without a fight of its own.

“The Ministry is aware of the case and is appealing the decision,” MTO spokesman Bob Nichols told Land Line. “As the case is still before the courts, it would be inappropriate to comment further at this time.”

The Owner-Operators Business Association of Canada, of which Ingratta is a member, went public with the news of the case following Ingratta’s court decision.

Ritchie said OBAC began raising concerns several years ago about issues of driver privacy and the potential for computer-related problems resulting from port-data exchanges.

“This whole thing about warranty issues – they’re worried about that because they could get themselves into trouble because that tool they use is not licensed software,” Ritchie said. “Engine makers don’t give that to just anybody and it’s very expensive.”

Drivers Against Speed Limiter Legislation, a Facebook group operated by trucker Scott Mooney, was abuzz this week with the news about Ingratta’s case.

Mooney, a member of OBAC and OOIDA, is currently fighting a speed-limiter ticket of his own in Napanee, Ontario. His argument is about the safety aspects and speed differentials that speed limiters on one class of vehicles can cause on the highways. He also has concerns with privacy and the potential for the province to inadvertently void warranties.

“Dealerships do not want any unauthorized personnel tampering with a truck’s ECM,” Mooney said.

“If you as an owner-operator have problems with your computer, and you go in to your dealership and they find out that the last person that accessed the computer was MTO, they can use that to say somebody who wasn’t qualified was into this thing, and that voids your warranty.”

Mooney’s own case has been set for July 21 in provincial court in Napanee.

Meanwhile, Ingratta is gearing up for the appeal in his case, which has yet to have a date set.

“Either they’re going to keep shoving this stuff down our throat and we keep taking it, or we need to stand up for ourselves,” Ingratta said.

“It’s our equipment, and it’s our trucks. We have a right. We have some rights left, anyway.”

The availability of the information that will be mandated in the proposed EOBR rule is a treasure trove of information for criminal exploitation. Even though the information required does not go to the GPS grid coordinate level, all a criminal needs to know is the city where a truck got loaded. Shipping locations are well known within the transportation community. If you tell me the city a shipment came from I can tell you the most likely contents of the load. Truck hijackers will focus on trucks that have visited cities that ship pharmaceuticals, electronics, copper, aluminum, and other high value loads. Wireless networks and/or have an external access point are generally not considered secure methods of data transmission.

To protect sensitive information the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (“FISMA”, 44 U.S.C. § 3541, et seq.) is a United States federal law enacted in 2002 as Title III of the E-Government Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2899). The act recognized the importance of information security to the economic and national security interests of the United States.[1] The act requires each federal agency to develop, document, and implement an agency-wide program to provide information security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency, including those provided or managed by another agency, contractor, or other source.[1]

According to FISMA, the term information security means protecting information and information systems from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction in order to provide integrity, confidentiality and availability.

As a private company, Qualcomm does not have to comply with FISMA when selling systems to private companies. When the Federal Government mandates the use of a system by Government to interact with private carriers, it now becomes subject to FISMA.

Recommendation:

A. Prior to publication of any EOBR regulation, the US DOT must comply and document compliance with all aspects of the FISMA act to achieve system accreditation as discussed in the following paragraph:

“Once the system documentation and risk assessment has been completed, the system’s controls must be reviewed and certified to be functioning appropriately. Based on the results of the review, the information system is accredited. The certification and accreditation process is defined in NIST SP 800-37 “Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems”.[12]”

B. Compliance with Federal Laws by DOT is not optional it is mandatory. Additionally, the reason for information security is to protect individual truck drivers from the violence associated with criminal activity associated with the exploitation of vulnerable information by criminals.
C. Once the EOBR has been certified, accredited, and documented as required by “Guide for the Security Certification and Accreditation of Federal Information Systems”, the DOT will need to republish the proposed EOBR regulation to include all the additional costs associated with information security.

Go ahead and allow eobr’s, just as long as Every truck on any US Highway has one as well. I found the one I used, Peoplenet worked very well, and took alot less of my time keeping a paper log. There has to be some rules however. If a shipper or reciever holds up the driver, they should be fined no less then $10,000.00 an occurance. When a driver is in on duty not driving mode, they need to be paid a fair hourly wage. If its an owner opperator truck, the truck must be paid as well. I’m talking $20.00 an hr for the driver, and $100.00 an hr for the truck. Everyone wants safety, until safety costs money! Another issue, if a carrier uses an eobr to wake up a driver on his 10 hr break, the carrier must be fined a minimun of $100,000.00 per occurance. Lets see how bad the fmcsa wants eobr’s now.

It sounds like you feel that when drivers violate HOS rules, it’s often because of things outside their control, like your example of shippers and receivers holding them up. It would be great to hear more about your experiences with Peoplenet. What did you like about it?

the only way a driver makes any money is when the truck is moving. If the shipper or reciever holds you up, your not making a dime. So you either fix the logs, or go broke, Its that simple. The Federal goverment knows this, they just look the other way. If everyone had to log legal because of the eobr’s, there would be a need for more trucks on the road, more drivers, improved freeways to handle the trucks just to keep up with whats being shipped now. Everything will go up. The ecomony can’t handle that.

i dont know how to comment on anothere post. but to who commented on one of mine. what I meant by drivers will have to shut down in the middle of no where often due to an eobr is not because the eobr will shut his truck off i meant because he/she will have to stop when the eobr says times up rather then making it just a few more miles to a safe place, etc. I had this happen running elogs in bad weather i had to shut down 16 miles from home because my time was up.. i had to park in reed point montana i only live 16 miles from there, but due to weather conditions and the elog i could not drive home.

You can comment on another post by clicking on the “reply” button that appears on the bottom right hand corner of the post. You seem to be suggesting that EOBRs are very inflexible. What are some suggestions on how to make the EOBRs more workable? How does your experience with the elogs compare to that of the EOBR?

Fact!!! an eobr can and will be used to force a driver to drive when he or she is not rested.. using a qualcomm system i have in the past been awakened at night only to have my dispacher tell me my 10 hours is up and i need to get going. he has no idea how long i had been asleep or resting just that i had been sitting for 10 hours and woke me up at 2;30 am sayin i had to go ive sat my 10 hours.. now how will an eobr make this better.. as an owner operator using no qualcomm and paper logs i slept as long as i wanted and they didnt know the difference..

Very true! I had my dispatcher at Melton Truck Lines in Tulsa Oklahoma both send me a QualComm and Call me on the phone in the middle of my 10 hour break and wake me up to ask me how long before my break was over. I told here 10 hours from right now, because you just interupted my 10 hour dot break. Then I hung up on her, turned off my phone and unplugged the QualComm! I quit that Sorry job 2 weeks later. They don’t want drivers, they want robots!

FMCSA has only identified certain data that an EOBR must collect (you can see that list here). But you point out that they could be used for other things, like waking up a driver on break. Do you have any other examples or concerns about possible misuse of EOBRs?

I own and operate my own truck. The FMCSA now mandates that companies with a “HIGH” safety risk are required to install EOBR’s. Now the FMCSA utilizing manipulated data wants to force EOBR’s on all interstate truckers. Am I to presume then we are all guilty of being unsafe law breaking drivers now? If I don’t want an EOBR in “MY” legally owned truck, that should be my choice, not the governments. I drive safely and responsibly and I don’t need the government to force me to install a spendy piece of equipment to make sure that I do. I also don’t need the “fatigue” that will be created when the data from an EOBR is used to “micromanage” my time.

I think if you are a owner or lease operator you should be not under this. They have to worry about way to much, and they want more. When does it stop, they get hit with road tax, high fuel prices. etc..

MR moderator you asked a question where damnin found his stats, however you can for the most part back much of his stats on the FMCSA OWN WEB site. Look under heavy trucks fatal truck accidents, and start reading. MR RAY LA Hood needs to look at their own stats before he runs of with the mouth, when stating accident stats. And then so many wounder why so many drivers distrust the FMCSA and their agenda

Hey moderator! two questions. Is the request for comments regarding driver harassment by EOBR’s a separate process with comments made elsewhere or can we make them on regulation room. If so, under which category? Also, will all comments made on regulation room be included as public comment as written or do we need to repost our comments on the federal register to ensure they are heard? I like the regulation room concept and endorse it for future regulatory reviews. Thanks!

The Regulation Room team summarizes the discussion that has taken place here on the site and submits it to FMCSA as a formal comment. We write detailed summaries, and the agency does address them in the final rule. (To see an example, you can look at the recently completed airline passenger rights rule here.) We’ll be posting draft summaries of the EOBR discussion this week so that users can review them and suggest improvements. Then we’ll make changes to the summaries, based on users’ comments, and submit the final summary to DOT on the last day of the comment period.

So you definitely don’t have to post your comments to http://regulations.gov to make sure that FMCSA sees them, although if you want to, you can do that here.

What about privacy concerns?

Information collected. Basically, the same personally identifiable information (PIIpersonally identifiable information) that drivers are now required to be keep with RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) will be collected by EOBRs.

FMCSA believes this is the basic information required to ensure HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance. It notes that it has intentionally not required EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) to record the following information:

vehicle speed

braking action

steering function

other vehicle performance data

location at a level of precision to pinpoint a street address (The only required location information is state, county, and city/town/village.)

Even if the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) collects only the same types of PII personally identifiable information now collected with RODS, drivers are likely to be concerned about having PII personally identifiable information in electronic form. The following sections describe what precautions FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) proposes to take.

Who can access EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data. During the roadside safety inspection process, law enforcement and safety officials will use special software to download information stored in the EOBR. This is supposed be done through wireless transmission, although a wired connection could be used if the wireless transfer fails. To minimize the risk of unauthorized people deliberately or accidentally capturing PII personally identifiable information during transmission, the software does NOT download the name of the driver or any personal identifier. It transfers only duty status, time, and miles driven. The software then analyzes the data and displays a graph that highlights areas of violation.

If the law enforcement or safety official concludes there is no citable violation, he/she is supposed to immediately delete the entire EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) file. The driver’s PII personally identifiable information (name, CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles license number, issuing jurisdiction) is added to the file only if a citable violation exists—and then the official must type it in manually.

Carriers must maintain EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data for 6 months. See What About Supporting Documents? The data must be made available to federal and state safety and enforcement personnel during on-site compliance reviews.

30How data are stored. When a roadside inspection reveals a citable violation, an inspection report is generated by the software on the official’s laptop, and the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data are added as an attachment. Then the entire inspection record is uploaded to the Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) and to FMCSA’s Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). The information is encrypted for this transmission to minimize unauthorized interception. EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data that do not reveal HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) violations are deleted, not uploaded.

Records in these systems can be accessed only by authorized federal and state officials (and contractors conducting system support or maintenance). Access is password protected, and the scope of access for each password is limited to the official need of each individual authorized to access the systems. Password security, data encryption, and a secure network provide additional protection.

Carriers would have to upload EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data only in the same situations they now provide RODS Record of duty status (A logbook maintained by CMV drivers to track driving time (i.e., duty status) for each 24-hour period) and other HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) information – that is, in the course of an enforcement activity like a compliance review. Only HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) records showing violations will be retained by enforcement and safety officials.

47How data could be used. The principal the amount that is borrowed, not counting the cost of interest or fees use of EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data is to confirm HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance, whether at roadside checks or on-site carrier reviews. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) says that the data will not be used to enforce non-HOS related violations such as speeding. Also, except in the context of investigating a crash or some other FMCSR Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations: federal rules governing operation and safety of Commercial Motor Vehicles violation, EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data would not be used to investigate a driver’s off-duty activities.

FMCSA acknowledges that, due to its accuracy, EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) data might be sought and used in litigation unrelated to HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) compliance. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) does not have the power to change the rights of private litigants to seek discovery. Also, it has to disclose certain motor carrier A person providing motor vehicle transportation for compensation. The term includes a motor carrier’s agents, officers and employees and driver information if someone makes a Freedom of Information Act request. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has tried to minimize these risks by limiting the kind of information EOBRs Electronic on-Board Recorders (Devices attached to commercial motor vehicles that track the number of hours drivers spend on the road) must record (e.g., not requiring location information as specific as street address).

519Drivers’ rights. Drivers have certain rights when it comes to the personal information that FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) has about them. They may ask FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) whether or not it has PII personally identifiable information relating to them, and get access to what that information is. If a driver feels the information is incorrect, he/she may file a challenge and have the data corrected, completed, amended or erased.

60PII in Supporting Documents. This rulemaking also includes a proposal to limit the types of supporting documents that carries must keep to verify the HOS Hours of service (Regulations issued by FMCSA that limit the number of daily and weekly hours a CMV driver may drive) information in duty logs. See What About Supporting Documents? Many carriers now keep almost every document they receive; many of these contain sensitive drivers PII. FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (The agency proposing the EOBR Electronic on-Board Recorder (A device attached to commercial motor vehicles that tracks the number of hours drivers spend on the road) rule) believes that limiting the types of required documents to normal business records (like payroll and trip-expense reports) will mean that carriers keep much less personal information on their drivers in their supporting documents file.

For more background information on hours of service, EOBRs, and CMV Commercial Motor Vechicles drivers generally, visit the Background page.